I enjoyed this reflective piece from Math with Bad Drawings about determining whether or is larger. The final answer, involving the number , was a complete surprise to me.

Short story: is the unique number so that for all positive .

I enjoyed this reflective piece from Math with Bad Drawings about determining whether or is larger. The final answer, involving the number , was a complete surprise to me.

Short story: is the unique number so that for all positive .

*Posted by John Quintanilla on February 15, 2019*

https://meangreenmath.com/2019/02/15/powers-great-and-small/

In my capstone class for future secondary math teachers, I ask my students to come up with ideas for *engaging* their students with different topics in the secondary mathematics curriculum. In other words, the point of the assignment was not to devise a full-blown lesson plan on this topic. Instead, I asked my students to think about three different ways of getting their students interested in the topic in the first place.

I plan to share some of the best of these ideas on this blog (after asking my students’ permission, of course).

This student submission comes from my former student Deanna Cravens. Her topic, from Precalculus: introducing the number .

How was this topic adopted by the mathematical community?

The number e is a relatively newer irrational number if compared to pi. However, it first made its appearance very subtly in 1618. Napier was working on a table of natural logarithms, however it was not noted that the base was e. There were a few other appearances of e but mathematicians had not truly made a connection to it. Eventually in 1683, Jacob Bernoulli was looking at a business application dealing with continuously compounded interest and recognized that the log function and the exponential function were inverses. In 1690, a letter was written by Leibniz and e officially had a name, except it was called ‘b’ at the time. As it comes to no surprise, Euler had his hand in discovering e. He published* Introductio in Analysin infinitorum* in 1748 where he showed that e is the limit of . Now Euler did not explicitly prove that e is irrational, however most people accepted it at that point, but it was indeed later proven.

How could you as a teacher create an activity or project that involves your topic?

Where does the number e come from? Well, the answer is a business application dealing with continuously compounded interest. However, students in a pre-calculus class can easily discover the number e without having to use the calculus behind it. Simply give students this short activity at the beginning of class.

One of the good things about this activity is that it gives a brief snippet of the history of e before students begin to calculate it. Then, students can easily use a calculator and plug in the listed values in the table into the equation . As the numbers get increasingly large, students will notice that they will all appear to be getting closer to 2.718… which is now known as the number e. As a teacher it is important to note that e is like pi, it is an irrational number that goes on forever and doesn’t have any sort of repeating pattern, yet it is extremely important in mathematics.

How can technology (YouTube, Khan Academy [khanacademy.org], Vi Hart, Geometers Sketchpad, graphing calculators, etc.) be used to effectively engage students with this topic?

This video would be excellent to show students who are asking, “why is e so important or where does it come from?” The video starts out by stating what e is approximately equal to. Then it gives a brief history about e and talks about compounded interest. It does a great job at explaining compounded interest. It is executed in a way where pre-calculus students can easily understand the concept. It also uses good visual cues to show how it would work. Next it lists several applications of e. These applications include: statistics through the normal curve, biology by modeling population growth, and physics by the exponential decay of a radioactive material. Overall, it does a great job showing the importance of e in real world applications. Thus, showing the importance of e to a pre-calculus students.

References:

1. http://www.classzone.com/eservices/home/pdf/student/LA208CAD.pdf

2. http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/HistTopics/e.html

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0oUeLQIbIk

*Posted by John Quintanilla on January 11, 2019*

https://meangreenmath.com/2019/01/11/engaging-students-introducing-the-number-e-5/

In my capstone class for future secondary math teachers, I ask my students to come up with ideas for *engaging* their students with different topics in the secondary mathematics curriculum. In other words, the point of the assignment was not to devise a full-blown lesson plan on this topic. Instead, I asked my students to think about three different ways of getting their students interested in the topic in the first place.

I plan to share some of the best of these ideas on this blog (after asking my students’ permission, of course).

This student submission comes from my former student Jillian Greene. Her topic, from Precalculus: introducing the number e.

**How does this topic extend what your students should have learned in previous courses?**

By this point in their mathematics career, the students have had plenty of experience with simple and compound interest formulas. Whether or not they discovered it them themselves through exploration in a class or their teacher just gave it to them, they’ve used it before. Now we can do an exploration activity that will connect that formula to the number e, and then to the limit. The activity will say: what if you invested $1 for 1 year at 100% compound interest? It’s a pretty good deal! But how much does the number of compounding periods affect the final value? Using the formula they have, A=P(1+r/n)^nt, they will calculate how much money they will make if it’s compounded:

- Yearly
- Biannually
- Quarterly
- Weekly
- Daily
- Hourly
- Every minute
- And every second

The first time it’s compounded, the final value will be $2. However, the more compounding periods you add, the closer to e you’ll get. For instance, weekly would be A=1(1+1/52)^52=2.69259695. Every second will get you A=1(1+1/31536000)^31536000=2.71828162, which is pretty to 2.718. The last three calculations will actually begin with 2.718. We can have some discussion with this as a class, bringing in the concept of limits. Then we can assess and see if anyone has seen this number before. If not, they can pop out their calculators and you can have them type “e” and then hit enter, and blow their minds.

**What interesting things can you say about the people who contributed to the discovery and/or the development of this topic?**

Though Euler does not receive credit for the first discovery of the number e, he does receive credit for naming it and first publishing it. Some say the e means exponential, some say he’d already published uses for a-d, and some say he named it after himself. He is quoted directly for saying “For the number whose logarithm is unity, let e be written, which is 2,7182817… [sic] whose logarithm according to Vlacq is 0,4342944… “ regarding the number e. He also has a couple of other choice quotes that illustrate his humor, ie “[upon losing the use of his right eye] ‘Now I will have less distraction.’” And “”Sir,

hence God exists; reply!” In response to the French philosophe Diderot, who was trying to convert the court of Catherine the Great of Russia to atheism. Diderot had no idea what Euler was talking about and left the court to a chorus of laughter.” Back to e, however. If Euler did not first discover it, who did? A man name John Napier did the best he could to discover e. Napier was alive from 1550-1617, so he did not have access to a rich history of advanced algebra. Logarithm tables existed, some close to natural log, but none to identify this mystical number. Napier was merely trying to find an easier way to approach multiplication (and consequently exponentiation). His work, *Construction of the Marvelous Rule of Logarithms, he states that X*=*Nap log* *y*, where *Nap log (*10^{7}*)=*0. In today’s terms, with today’s math, we can translate that to *Nap log y =* 10^{7} log_{1/}* _{e}*(

**How has this topic appeared in high culture (art, classical music, theatre, poetry* etc.)?**

After some discussion on this topic, if my class is a pre-AP or particularly curious class, I will have them go around and read this poem about e out loud. Then from this poem, I can have the students split up into groups. Each group will be responsible for dissecting this poem for certain things and then presenting their most interesting/exciting/relatable findings. One group will tackle the names; what history lesson is given to us here? Another group will handle applications; what did the various figures say we can do with e? The final group will report back on different representations of e; what all is e equal to? My expectations here would be for the students to see the insanely vast history and application of this number and gain some appreciation. I would expect to see Napier, Euler, and Leibniz for sure from the first group. From the second group, I would expect continuous compound interest, 1/e in probability and statistics, and calculus. The third group would be expected to present the numerical value of e, the limit that e is equal to, its infinite sum representation, and Euler’s identity. A number worthy of a 500 word poem and a slew of historical mathematicians must be important.

**The Enigmatic Number**** ****e**

*by Sarah Glaz*

It ambushed Napier at Gartness,

like a swashbuckling pirate

leaping from the base.

He felt its power, but never realized its nature.

*e*‘s first appearance in disguise—a tabular array

of values of ln, was logged in an appendix

to Napier‘s posthumous publication.

Oughtred, inventor of the circular slide rule,

still ignorant of *e*‘s true role,

performed the calculations.

A hundred thirteen years the hit and run goes on.

There and not there—elusive *e*,

escape artist and trickster,

weaves in and out of minds and computations:

Saint-Vincent caught a glimpse of it under rectangular hyperbolas;

Huygens mistook its rising trace for logarithmic curve;

Nicolaus Mercator described its log as natural

without accounting for its base;

Jacob Bernoulli, compounding interest continuously,

came close, yet failed to recognize its face;

and Leibniz grasped it hiding in the maze of calculus,

natural basis for comprehending change—but

misidentified as *b*.

The name was first recorded in a letter

Euler sent Goldbach in November 1731:

*“e denontat hic numerum, cujus logarithmus hyperbolicus est=1.”*

Since *a* was taken, and Euler

was partial to vowels,

*e* rushed to make a claim—the next in line.

We sometimes call *e* Euler‘s Number: he knew

*e* in its infancy as 2.718281828459045235.

On Wednesday, 6^{th} of May, 2009,

*e* revealed itself to Kondo and Pagliarulo,

digit by digit, to 200,000,000,000 decimal places.

It found a new digital game to play.

In retrospect, following Euler‘s naming,

*e* lifted its black mask and showed its limit:

e=limn→∞(1+1n)ne=limn→∞(1+1n)n

Bernoulli‘s compounded interest for an investment of one.

Its reciprocal gave Bernoulli many trials,

from gambling at the slot machines to deranged parties

where nameless gentlemen check hats with butlers at the door,

and when they leave*, e*‘s reciprocal hands each a stranger’s hat.

In gratitude to Euler, *e* showed a serious side,

infinite sum representation:

e=∑n=0∞1n!=10!+11!+12!+13!+⋯e=∑n=0∞1n!=10!+11!+12!+13!+⋯

For Euler‘s eyes alone, *e* fanned the peacock tail of

e−12e−12’s continued fraction expansion,

displaying patterns that confirmed

its own irrationality.

A century passed till *e—*through Hermite‘s pen,

was proved to be a transcendental number.

But to this day it teases us with

speculations about *e ^{e}*.

*e*‘s abstract beauty casts a glow on Euler’s Identity:

*e ^{i}*

the elegant, mysterious equation,

where waltzing arm in arm with

We meet *e* nowadays in functional high places

of Calculus, Differential Equations, Probability, Number Theory,

and other ancient realms:

*y = e ^{x}*

e

whose derivative is equal to itself.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

e

∫exdx=ex+c∫exdx=ex+c

a constant

and often

And now and then

honors and administrative duties multiply with age.

References:

http://www.maa.org/publications/periodicals/convergence/napiers-e-napier

http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/HistTopics/e.html

*Posted by John Quintanilla on July 11, 2017*

https://meangreenmath.com/2017/07/11/engaging-students-introducing-the-number-e-4/

I’m doing something that I should have done a long time ago: collecting a series of posts into one single post. The following links comprised my series examining one of Richard Feynman’s anecdotes about mentally computing for three different values of .

Part 1: Feynman’s anecdote.

Part 2: Logarithm and antilogarithm tables from the 1940s.

Part 3: A closer look at Feynman’s computation of .

Part 4: A closer look at Feynman’s computation of .

Part 5: A closer look at Feynman’s computation of .

*Posted by John Quintanilla on November 14, 2016*

https://meangreenmath.com/2016/11/14/computing-e-to-any-power-index/

In this series, I’m exploring the following ancedote from the book *Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!*, which I read and re-read when I was young until I almost had the book memorized.

One day at Princeton I was sitting in the lounge and overheard some mathematicians talking about the series for e^x, which is 1 + x + x^2/2! + x^3/3! Each term you get by multiplying the preceding term by x and dividing by the next number. For example, to get the next term after x^4/4! you multiply that term by x and divide by 5. It’s very simple.

When I was a kid I was excited by series, and had played with this thing. I had computed e using that series, and had seen how quickly the new terms became very small.

I mumbled something about how it was easy to calculate e to any power using that series (you just substitute the power for x).

“Oh yeah?” they said. “Well, then what’s e to the 3.3?” said some joker—I think it was Tukey.

I say, “That’s easy. It’s 27.11.”

Tukey knows it isn’t so easy to compute all that in your head. “Hey! How’d you do that?”

Another guy says, “You know Feynman, he’s just faking it. It’s not really right.”

They go to get a table, and while they’re doing that, I put on a few more figures.: “27.1126,” I say.

They find it in the table. “It’s right! But how’d you do it!”

“I just summed the series.”

“Nobody can sum the series that fast. You must just happen to know that one. How about e to the 3?”

“Look,” I say. “It’s hard work! Only one a day!”

“Hah! It’s a fake!” they say, happily.

“All right,” I say, “It’s 20.085.”

They look in the book as I put a few more figures on. They’re all excited now, because I got another one right.

Here are these great mathematicians of the day, puzzled at how I can compute e to any power! One of them says, “He just can’t be substituting and summing—it’s too hard. There’s some trick. You couldn’t do just any old number like e to the 1.4.”

I say, “It’s hard work, but for you, OK. It’s 4.05.”

As they’re looking it up, I put on a few more digits and say, “And that’s the last one for the day!” and walk out.

What happened was this: I happened to know three numbers—the logarithm of 10 to the base e (needed to convert numbers from base 10 to base e), which is 2.3026 (so I knew that e to the 2.3 is very close to 10), and because of radioactivity (mean-life and half-life), I knew the log of 2 to the base e, which is.69315 (so I also knew that e to the.7 is nearly equal to 2). I also knew e (to the 1), which is 2. 71828.

The first number they gave me was e to the 3.3, which is e to the 2.3—ten—times e, or 27.18. While they were sweating about how I was doing it, I was correcting for the extra.0026—2.3026 is a little high.

I knew I couldn’t do another one; that was sheer luck. But then the guy said e to the 3: that’s e to the 2.3 times e to the.7, or ten times two. So I knew it was 20. something, and while they were worrying how I did it, I adjusted for the .693.

Now I was sure I couldn’t do another one, because the last one was again by sheer luck. But the guy said e to the 1.4, which is e to the.7 times itself. So all I had to do is fix up 4 a little bit!

They never did figure out how I did it.

My students invariably love this story; let’s take a look at the third calculation.

Feynman knew that , so that

.

Therefore, again using the Taylor series expansion:

.

Again, I have no idea how he put on a few more digits in his head (other than his sheer brilliance), as this would require knowing the value of to six or seven digits as well as computing the next term in the Taylor series expansion.

*Posted by John Quintanilla on September 2, 2016*

https://meangreenmath.com/2016/09/02/computing-e-to-any-power-part-5/

In this series, I’m exploring the following ancedote from the book *Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!*, which I read and re-read when I was young until I almost had the book memorized.

One day at Princeton I was sitting in the lounge and overheard some mathematicians talking about the series for e^x, which is 1 + x + x^2/2! + x^3/3! Each term you get by multiplying the preceding term by x and dividing by the next number. For example, to get the next term after x^4/4! you multiply that term by x and divide by 5. It’s very simple.

When I was a kid I was excited by series, and had played with this thing. I had computed e using that series, and had seen how quickly the new terms became very small.

I mumbled something about how it was easy to calculate e to any power using that series (you just substitute the power for x).

“Oh yeah?” they said. “Well, then what’s e to the 3.3?” said some joker—I think it was Tukey.

I say, “That’s easy. It’s 27.11.”

Tukey knows it isn’t so easy to compute all that in your head. “Hey! How’d you do that?”

Another guy says, “You know Feynman, he’s just faking it. It’s not really right.”

They go to get a table, and while they’re doing that, I put on a few more figures.: “27.1126,” I say.

They find it in the table. “It’s right! But how’d you do it!”

“I just summed the series.”

“Nobody can sum the series that fast. You must just happen to know that one. How about e to the 3?”

“Look,” I say. “It’s hard work! Only one a day!”

“Hah! It’s a fake!” they say, happily.

“All right,” I say, “It’s 20.085.”

They look in the book as I put a few more figures on. They’re all excited now, because I got another one right.

Here are these great mathematicians of the day, puzzled at how I can compute e to any power! One of them says, “He just can’t be substituting and summing—it’s too hard. There’s some trick. You couldn’t do just any old number like e to the 1.4.”

I say, “It’s hard work, but for you, OK. It’s 4.05.”

As they’re looking it up, I put on a few more digits and say, “And that’s the last one for the day!” and walk out.

What happened was this: I happened to know three numbers—the logarithm of 10 to the base e (needed to convert numbers from base 10 to base e), which is 2.3026 (so I knew that e to the 2.3 is very close to 10), and because of radioactivity (mean-life and half-life), I knew the log of 2 to the base e, which is.69315 (so I also knew that e to the.7 is nearly equal to 2). I also knew e (to the 1), which is 2. 71828.

The first number they gave me was e to the 3.3, which is e to the 2.3—ten—times e, or 27.18. While they were sweating about how I was doing it, I was correcting for the extra.0026—2.3026 is a little high.

I knew I couldn’t do another one; that was sheer luck. But then the guy said e to the 3: that’s e to the 2.3 times e to the.7, or ten times two. So I knew it was 20. something, and while they were worrying how I did it, I adjusted for the .693.

Now I was sure I couldn’t do another one, because the last one was again by sheer luck. But the guy said e to the 1.4, which is e to the.7 times itself. So all I had to do is fix up 4 a little bit!

They never did figure out how I did it.

My students invariably love this story; let’s take a look at the second calculation.

Feynman knew that and , so that

.

Therefore, again using the Taylor series expansion:

.

Again, I have no idea how he put on a few more digits in his head (other than his sheer brilliance), as this would require knowing the values of and to six or seven digits as well as computing the next term in the Taylor series expansion:

$\approx 20 \times \left(1 + 0.0042677 + \frac{0.0042677^2}{2!} \right)$

This compares favorably with the actual answer, .

*Posted by John Quintanilla on September 1, 2016*

https://meangreenmath.com/2016/09/01/computing-e-to-any-power-part-4/

In this series, I’m looking at a wonderful anecdote from Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard P. Feynman from his book *Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!*. This story concerns a time that he computed mentally for a few values of , much to the astonishment of his companions.

Part of this story directly ties to calculus.

One day at Princeton I was sitting in the lounge and overheard some mathematicians talking about the series for e^x, which is 1 + x + x^2/2! + x^3/3! Each term you get by multiplying the preceding term by x and dividing by the next number. For example, to get the next term after x^4/4! you multiply that term by x and divide by 5. It’s very simple.

When I was a kid I was excited by series, and had played with this thing. I had computed e using that series, and had seen how quickly the new terms became very small.

As noted, this refers to the Taylor series expansion of , which is can be used to compute to any power. The terms get very small very quickly because of the factorials in the denominator, thus lending itself to the computation of . Indeed, this series is used by modern calculators (with a few tricks to accelerate convergence). In other words, the series from calculus explains how the mysterious “black box” of a graphing calculator actually works.

Continuing the story…

“Oh yeah?” they said. “Well, then what’s e to the 3.3?” said some joker—I think it was Tukey.

I say, “That’s easy. It’s 27.11.”

Tukey knows it isn’t so easy to compute all that in your head. “Hey! How’d you do that?”

Another guy says, “You know Feynman, he’s just faking it. It’s not really right.”

They go to get a table, and while they’re doing that, I put on a few more figures.: “27.1126,” I say.

They find it in the table. “It’s right! But how’d you do it!”

For now, I’m going to ignore how Feynman did this computation in his head and instead discuss “the table.” The setting for this story was approximately 1940, long before the advent of handheld calculators. I’ll often ask my students, “The Brooklyn Bridge got built. So how did people compute before calculators were invented?” The answer is by Taylor series, which were used to produce tables of values of . So, if someone wanted to find , they just had a book on the shelf.

For example, the following page comes from the book Marks’ Mechanical Engineers’ Handbook, 6th edition, which was published in 1958 and which I happen to keep on my bookshelf at home.

Look down the fifth and sixth columns of this table, we see that . Somebody had computed all of these things (and plenty more) using the Taylor series, and they were compiled into a book and sold to mathematicians, scientists, and engineers.

But what if we needed an approximation better more accurate than four significant digits? Back in those days, there were only two options: do the Taylor series yourself, or buy a bigger book with more accurate tables.

*Posted by John Quintanilla on August 30, 2016*

https://meangreenmath.com/2016/08/30/computing-e-to-any-power-part-2/

Whenever I teach natural logarithms, I always share the following anecdote from the book *Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!*, which I read and re-read when I was young until I almost had the book memorized.

I mumbled something about how it was easy to calculate e to any power using that series (you just substitute the power for x).

“Oh yeah?” they said. “Well, then what’s e to the 3.3?” said some joker—I think it was Tukey.

I say, “That’s easy. It’s 27.11.”

Tukey knows it isn’t so easy to compute all that in your head. “Hey! How’d you do that?”

Another guy says, “You know Feynman, he’s just faking it. It’s not really right.”

They find it in the table. “It’s right! But how’d you do it!”

“I just summed the series.”

“Nobody can sum the series that fast. You must just happen to know that one. How about e to the 3?”

“Look,” I say. “It’s hard work! Only one a day!”

“Hah! It’s a fake!” they say, happily.

“All right,” I say, “It’s 20.085.”

They look in the book as I put a few more figures on. They’re all excited now, because I got another one right.

Here are these great mathematicians of the day, puzzled at how I can compute e to any power! One of them says, “He just can’t be substituting and summing—it’s too hard. There’s some trick. You couldn’t do just any old number like e to the 1.4.”

I say, “It’s hard work, but for you, OK. It’s 4.05.”

As they’re looking it up, I put on a few more digits and say, “And that’s the last one for the day!” and walk out.

What happened was this: I happened to know three numbers—the logarithm of 10 to the base e (needed to convert numbers from base 10 to base e), which is 2.3026 (so I knew that e to the 2.3 is very close to 10), and because of radioactivity (mean-life and half-life), I knew the log of 2 to the base e, which is.69315 (so I also knew that e to the.7 is nearly equal to 2). I also knew e (to the 1), which is 2. 71828.

The first number they gave me was e to the 3.3, which is e to the 2.3—ten—times e, or 27.18. While they were sweating about how I was doing it, I was correcting for the extra.0026—2.3026 is a little high.

I knew I couldn’t do another one; that was sheer luck. But then the guy said e to the 3: that’s e to the 2.3 times e to the.7, or ten times two. So I knew it was 20. something, and while they were worrying how I did it, I adjusted for the .693.

Now I was sure I couldn’t do another one, because the last one was again by sheer luck. But the guy said e to the 1.4, which is e to the.7 times itself. So all I had to do is fix up 4 a little bit!

They never did figure out how I did it.

My students invariably love this story.

In this series, I’d like to take a deeper look at this wonderful anecdote.

*Posted by John Quintanilla on August 29, 2016*

https://meangreenmath.com/2016/08/29/computing-e-to-any-power-part-1/

In my capstone class for future secondary math teachers, I ask my students to come up with ideas for *engaging* their students with different topics in the secondary mathematics curriculum. In other words, the point of the assignment was not to devise a full-blown lesson plan on this topic. Instead, I asked my students to think about three different ways of getting their students interested in the topic in the first place.

I plan to share some of the best of these ideas on this blog (after asking my students’ permission, of course).

This student submission comes from my former student Loc Nguyen. His topic, from Precalculus: introducing the number .

How could you as a teacher create an activity or project that involves your topic?

To be able to understand where the number e is produced in the first place, students need to understand how compound interest is calculated. Before introducing the number e, I will definitely create an activity for the students to work on so that they can eventually find the formula for compounding interest based on the patterns they produce throughout the process. The compound interest formula is F=P(1+r/n)^{nt}. From this formula, I will again provide students a worksheet to work on. In this worksheet, I will let P=1, r=100%, t=1, then the compound interest formula will be F=(1+1/n)^{n}. Now students will compute the final value from yearly to secondly.

When they do all the computation, they will see all the decimal places of the final value lining up as n gets big. And finally, they will see that the final value gets to the fixed value as n goes to infinity. That number is e=2.71828162….,

How has this topic appeared in the news?

To help the students realize how important number e is, I would engage them with the real life examples or applications. There were some news that incorporated exponential curves. First, I will show the students the news about how fast deadly disease Ebola will grow through this link http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2014/09/18/349341606/why-the-math-of-the-ebola-epidemic-is-so-scary. The students will eventually see how exponential curve comes into play. After that I will provide them this link, http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/22/exponential-growth-global-solar-pv-production-installation/, in this link, the article talked about the global population rate and it provided the scientific evidence that showed the data collected represent the exponential curve. Up to this point, I will show the students that the population growth model is:

Those examples above was about the growth. For the next example, I will ask the students that how the scientists figured out the age of the earth. In this link, http://earthsky.org/earth/how-old-is-the-earth, the students will learn that the scientists used *Modern radiometric dating methods* to calculate the age of earth. At this time, I will show them radioactive decay formula and explain to them that this formula is used to determine the lives of the substances such as rocks:

How can technology (YouTube, Khan Academy [khanacademy.org], Vi Hart, Geometers Sketchpad, graphing calculators, etc.) be used to effectively engage students with this topic?

To introduce to the students what the number e is, I will engage them with two videos. In the first video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFgod5tmLYY, the math song “e a magic number” will engage the students why it is a magic number. While watching this clip, the students will be able to learn the history of e. Also the students will see many mathematical formulas and expressions that contain e. This will give them a heads up that they will see these in future when they take higher level math. It is also pretty humorous of how Dr. Chris Tisdell sang the song.

In the second video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-MZumdfbt8, it explained why e is everywhere. The video used probability and exponential function to illustrate the usefulness of e, and showed how e is involving in everything. It gave many examples of e such as population, finance… Also the video illustrates the characteristics of the number e and the function that has e in it. Watching these videos will enhance students’ perception and understanding on the number e, and help them to see how important this number is.

Reference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-MZumdfbt8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFgod5tmLYY

http://www.math.unt.edu/~baf0018/courses/handouts/exponentialnotes.pdf

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/22/exponential-growth-global-solar-pv-production-installation/

http://earthsky.org/earth/how-old-is-the-earth

*Posted by John Quintanilla on June 26, 2016*

https://meangreenmath.com/2016/06/26/engaging-students-introducing-the-number-e-3/

*Posted by John Quintanilla on October 15, 2015*

https://meangreenmath.com/2015/10/15/natural-logarithms/